Maybe this will be one less thing to replace around the house: The House approves a provision to...

Maybe this will be one less thing to replace around the house: The House approves a provision to save the 100-watt incandescent light bulb for at least a year. Legislation passed in 2007 would have effectively pushed the traditional bulbs off store shelves, starting with the 100-watt version next year.

Toilets that flush? And no I am not into Soccer or any other sports for that matter. I couldn't agree with you more about free men and choice, you are correct sir!JerryP.S. Sometimes my sarcasm is not well received. Forgive me...

Hey Bo,I'm always up for some fun. I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I do believe the constitution says something to the effect;The constitution demand's that if the government of the people gets so far away from its mandates it be disbanded and replaced. Don't know if that answers your question but we couldn't do worse than Nancy Pelosi and this progressive administration,{Republ... and Democrats alike}, I don't need to hear how I am picking on Dem's alone...Jerry

Quoting Warren BuffettI could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.

I like how you picked the most extreme case of the closet, where nobody ever uses the light. I get enough light from my bedroom I hardly ever turn it on. I think out of all the places I've ever lived, I've probably used 1 closet light and that was rare.

So you didn't really make any points you just went off on a rant.

For someone all about math, way to inflate the numbers. You can get an 8 pack CFL for $5.

The upfront cost of an LED is overpriced now, but that's because there is no economy of scale behind them. That's simple understanding of economics. Any newer technology is going to be like that, DUH. But it still saves more in the long run, especially with frequently used areas, which is where you would put it, not the closet. DUH.

That's the thing with you extreme conservatives, you're so busy playing scared and running away from progress, always focusing on why you're scared of everything, it's a wonder you ever get ANYTHING done.

I'm not the one that made it political. Just pointing out it's every conservative talk show has to take up this stupid light bulb cause as if it was threatening universal suffrage, instead of focusing on more important issues.

You're an extreme conservative, just admit it, your views speak for themselves, whether you want to be honest about it or not.

Bush may have signed the law, but the part you are conveniently leaving out is who is running the opposition to it - all the conservatives and those who watch the Fox News crowd, such as yourself.

Most lighting is moving towards LEDs anyway, and economies of scale continue to bring prices down.

The outsourcing argument is a joke, as jobs would have been moved overseas anyway regardless of the technology, so don't try and pin it on fluorescent lights. I haven't supported GE or outsourcing, so don't even try it.

For a self procolaimed called expert, you're all over the place with alot of wild assumptions, duct taping alot of unrelated information together, then constructing weak strawmen that you can punch down.

Mercury has been in fluorescent lighting for decades,compacts actually contain less than traditional. Plus you can just take one to Home Depot and they will recycle it for you when it's done. So there are issues with landfills.

However, using compacts actually lessens power plant emissions, which results in net reduction of mercury, along with other pollutants, from being spewed into air, when coal is burned. (The mercury inside the bulb is actually not being released into the air the way leaded gasoline released lead).

You seem to want to make an argument to support antiquated technology and bad products as if that will somehow protect jobs. Oh wait, you're the guy that said how awesome GM (nice bailout lol) was and enjoys supporting inferior products that suck. You got your cause and effect wrong. So I hate to burst your bubble, but any company that is offshoring, is going to do it regardless of what they are producing.

But hey, you're the ignorant guy that had no clue about emissions and how Detroit dropped the ball over the past 20 years while being surpassed by Japan by a mile.

Fox News has everything to do with it because it's the Fox News and every other conservative talk show that has championed this cause as if it was a threat to everyone's Constitutional Rights. It just looks ridiculous.

Keep up with the strawmen arguments though.

Hey where's the $35 dollar closet light bulb you were talking about anyway? For a self-proclaimed expert, you have a nice tendency to pull things out of your ass.

Oh and by the way,

"Lighting giant Philips (PHG) is predicting that LEDs will take 50% of the lighting market by 2015."

Wow, that's the biggest dodge in the history of the internet. First off you are limiting it to 100W, the law only STARTS with that bulb, it does not limit it to it. It will force out ALL incandescent bulbs by 2014. Secondly you talk about a the strawman of someone using a light for only 100 hours, yeah nice work. Of course you are going to pick the most extreme examples. Why the hell would I need a 100W light bulb in my closet I never use anyway? Your example.

Oh by the way you got demolished previously when stuck up for GM and cited them as creating the catalytic converter, but you couldn't find crap in the last 20 years. Meanwhile I posted development after development which showed Honda independently meeting government standards years before they were even enforced. The whole time Honda was pushing more emissions-friendly cars, GM is emphasizing bigger and bigger gas-guzzling trucks, some close to single digit MPG.

Finally when you talk about politics, these are direct quotes from the article. It's pretty clear this is a political issue along party lines, and it's also clear which side you have chosen.

"which has become a pear-shaped symbol of personal freedom to some Republicans."

“The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home,” said Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican who sponsored the amendment, during debate yesterday. “It is our right to choose.”

"Democrats rejected Republicans’ complaints that the bulb standards would restrict choice, saying companies already produce more than one type of lighting that would comply with the law, including a more efficient and more expensive incandescent."

Our original discussion was about how Detroit dropped the ball with regards to emissions standards by focusing on making bigger and bigger trucks while the Japanese companies got ahead of the curve and developed most fuel efficient vehicles.

So the recessions happened and Detroit was once again left with its pants down and needed a BAILOUT to survive.

"While they're at it can we have the old toilets back so I don't have to flush four times to get a single turd down?"

You can do what all of our friends do and that is to hold the lever down and just let the water run for a couple of minutes. There is no way rules and regulations can control behavior in spite of the fact that liberals, socialists, and Democrats what everyone to believe that their regulations are in everyones best interest. They are not and never will be. Yes, we needed some environmental changes in the 60's, but grow up, we are over that now.

Lightway, the problem is you're ignorant of history. The Founders didn't want a democracy, so they founded a republic whose powers to meddle in the lives of it's citizens were strictly limited by a constitution. If they were brought back to life today they wouldn't recognize the US as the country they founded.

You telling me what I can eat is typical of you leftists/fascists (aka American liberals). You're a bunch of control freaks and have taken over the government as your instrument of control, and you want total ownership of our bodies and minds and what we're allowed to do with both.

No, I am saying that some rules have no other purpose than to limit freedom. Yet the ignorant Democrat socialist liberals, just keep thinking they are saving the world as if they are gods.

One example is the toilet water limitation. If you live in a desert, and don't have water, then sure you should limit it. But it should only apply to the areas that have limited water.

I live in the midwest and we have plenty of water. Guess what happens when I flush the toilet, the water goes down the drain, to the processing plant, then back in the ground where it is pumped back up and used for, (now the really big surprise) water in the tap to be flushed again. The water does not magically go away. So the only reason to limit the water in my toilet is to limit my freedom to be able to flush once and be done with it. Its one of the stupidest things I can imagine and its nothing but government interference with freedom.

But that's not all. The government in their infinite stupidity has straightened out all of the rivers so that now when it rains the water runs off to the Gulf of Mexico instead of seeping back into the ground water reservoir or evaporating into the air. Again these government liberal socialists think they can fix the world and are just screwing it up because they think they are gods. So in the next 50 or 100 years we will have a water problem caused by the liberal socialists.

None of this would be happening if we had limited government the way the framers of the Constitution wanted. If we did not bail out flooded residents, then guess what, they would not build in flood areas and we would not have to keep straightening rivers and ruining the natural irrigation.

You guys are hilarious. Don't talk about the Constitution as if you were there. You also think you live upon some island where you are self-sustaining and self-made men with freedom to choose whatever you want. Well I hate to break it to you, but your actions do affect the communities you live in.

People back in the Constitutional days were also dependent on the government, (that's kinda why it's the called the government) even those brave pioneers had government troops clearing indigenous populations and giving them hugely discounted land. I guess Custer was a liberal?

We should take back things like fire codes because it's my right if my house burns down, screw everybody else if the fire spreads to them.

Finally, do some homework for once in your lives:

"Paradoxically, the Midwest also faces the possibility of more frequent short-term droughts in the coming decades due to falling amounts of summer rainfall combined with rising temperatures. Long-term droughts should be less frequent, according to the UCS report."

Lightway, you haven't a clue. Most folks back then rarely had any interaction with government. A landowner might have to pay property taxes, and for those engaged in trading of goods duties on certain goods were levied, but that's about it.

Your example of troops is in fact one of the few powers granted to the federal government. What the Constitution doesn't grant is the power to dictate the fiber in my diet or how my toilet works or what types of lightbulbs I may use.

The fact is your couldn't give a damn about the Constitution. You're a typical leftist control freak that can't stand to have folks living lives outside of the restrictive boundaries that you want to force upon them.